About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
shared with us at prayer breakfast. we don't quote what people say at that meeting but he talked about his feeling about war and his participation in it. it was one of the most moving presentations i think any of us had seen. and it was so well received by the people there t. truth is senator inouye did not like war. he hated war. he knew the drubblingtive power of war and how people suffered as a result of it. and he voted against a number of resolutions that would commit the united states to military action. but at the same time, there was no doubt based on his ranking and chairmanship over a period of years, decades e he was a person who always at bottom could be counted on to ensure that this nation was well defended, that we did not make mistakes. and he and senator ted stevens had a unique relationship. and when something really developed that was important for the defense department and it involved a danger to our government or could do damage to the department or they needed something really seriously needed it, often times in this government we can't respond and we don't respo
at the history of what has been done. there is a long history of using that debt limit as a moment to distract from the party in power. if we had an academic seminar on the impact of the that struggle and the fiscal policy, he would say that it was a negative thing. >> well, i have never until last year of august 2011, i have not seen any serious effort or serious threat made by the leadership of congress to refuse to give the secretary of treasury the ability to offer to meet obligations congress had adopted. i thought that was a new experience for us. it certainly was for me to see that happen. dr. zandi, you said you think that we need to repeal this law that tries to set a debt limit and concentrate more on taxing and spending policies that causes to raise the debt, as i understand? >> absolutely. it is a bad way to conduct policy. it is a problem. look at july and august of 2011. it was a mess. gdp downgraded the debt. it really had an impact. cbo is estimating the interest costs is costing us money. it is pretty clear that this is not going to get any better going forward. it will be wor
with the u.s. think you, i yield back. >> mr. affleck, i think you have raised a central issue, the lack of security among the population. right now we are relying upon congolese government to provide as security. in afghanistan, we've got a questionable partner in the karzai government. that has been difficult. we have a less than credible partner in the congolese government. in afghanistan, we have gone through these stabilization operations as an alternative way to provide security at the local level with the villages, communities, whereby we have been providing some arms and training to the local population there so that they can provide their own security. obviously, the karzai government has been opposed to that. are there any opportunities for any alternative strategies, given the nature of the in theese government any d drc, mr. affleck? >> i will yield to an expert fellow panelist year, but one of the -- the basic issue, and one that will go a long way and that i alluded to earlier, climbing some influence to president -- are applying some influence to president kabila so that p
is exported all around the world. they want the u.s. economy to be stronger as quickly as possible, because it means there will be able to continue to export. as much as they're trying to move from an export driven economy to a more domestic consumption based economy, they will still rely heavily on exports. the more americans are working, the more money they have in their pockets, the more they will be shopping in stores, and so much of what they buy is made from many other countries, including china. the healthier the u.s. economy is, the more that china will export. that means jobs for the chinese people. >> when you talk to leaders, how much are they actually were it about united states? -- worried about united states? >> i think united states is incredibly important to china, and recognize that. not only in very practical ways, but in another way, more psychological. there is a 150 year history were china has been trying to check itself up in big shin itself upr status. there is this lingering psychological mindset of china being victimized by the great powers. it is kind of a struggle
into this bill and the way he's worked cooperatively with all of us on both sides of the aisle and madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the nat has passed without amendment h.r. 3641, cited as the national park act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. >> i have no fufert speakers and reserve the balance -- mr. chaffetz: i have no further speakers and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia. ms. norton: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from utah. mr. chaffetz: i would like to thank representative poe for introducing this legislation. the intill bipartisan in its approach, it creates a means for properly commemorating the cent
-- please give them a big round of applause. [applause] i want to thank martin for hosting us. i want to thank jeff and gibby for giving me a great tour of the factory. [applause] i've got to say i love coming to factories. >> i love you! >> i love you. so in addition to seeing the best workers in the world -- you've also got all this cool equipment. [laughter] i wanted to try out some of the equipment, but secret service wouldn't let me. [laughter] they said, you're going to drop something on your head, hurt yourself. [laughter] they were worried i'd mess something up. and jeff and gibby may not admit it, but i think they were pretty happy the secret service wouldn't let me touch the equipment. now, it's been a little over a month since the election came to an end. [applause] so it's now safe for you to turn your televisions back on. [laughter] all those scary political ads are off the air. you can answer your phone again -- nobody is calling you in the middle of dinner asking for your support. but, look, i have to admit there's one part of the campaign that i miss, and that is it is
-585-3880. for independents, 202-585-3882. you can also find us online. send us a tweet, twitter.com/c- spanwj. find a son facebook and weigh in there. at journal@c- span.org. "the christian science monitor," asked what we would be willing to give up. "americans would be willing to give up the tax deduction for charitable giving over other popular tax breaks." host: let's take a look at the results of this poll. 25% said that they would be willing to give up the charitable giving tax deduction. almost the same amount said it would be willing to give up their deduction for state taxes. 19% said they would be willing to give up host: we would like to hear what deduction you would give up. you can weigh in on our facebook page, there's a poll set up where you can tell us specifically which interests you the most, or perhaps which one you dislike the least. tom is from sioux falls, s.d.. good morning. caller: i would be willing to give up my earned income credit. that is $1,000 per year, for me. i would be willing to give that up if it would help the country. one that i would not give up is my standard mileag
-585-3880. for independents, 202-585-3882. remember, also, send us it twitter message, the analysis is that americans need to embrace sacrifice again. he says that any outcome of this is going to require sacrifice and pain from the american public. in the peace he writes that the problem is not washington, that it is us. no longer are we willing to pay for the things that we know that we need. boaters that demand something for nothing will demand otherwise. politicians who fear for their jobs will comply. we want to turn to all of you and ask you, what are you willing to sacrifice? are you willing to change medicare and social security as republicans say is needed? are you willing to increase taxes, as democrats say is needed? first we show you, from yesterday's "face the nation," erskine bowles, who had this to say about spending. [video clip] >> if we are going to raise revenue in any form, we had better cut spending. that is the biggest part of the problem. the biggest part of that problem is the fact that health care is growing at a faster rate than gdp. host: there it is, he says that it has got to b
you again for joining us. i do not think if you ran research in the streets of tel aviv or washington you would find a lot of people who know who rousseau and voltaire are. if we want to wait until the palestinians know who they are, it is going to be a while. so let's put that aside for a second. the $10,000bout gdp. i think it is a lofty idea and a very good idea. let's assume that today the palestinians have $10,000 gdp. then what? >> again, in a moment, it is very easy to incite violence, to recruit terrorists when people are in a poor situation, a bad situation. today, with unemployment about 20% -- >> but he is giving you a hypothetical. >> i think is something we can achieve, $10,000. after this moment, the people will be ready because they have more to lose. today, many terrorists understand this is a way to feed their families, to get money from a radical, international movement, radical regimes. for them it as a way to feed their families. if they had more to lose, i think it will be completely different reality. i see for example in the balkan region what happens. remember,
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9